Cryptomundo » Coast to Coast AM: Male Chauvinism Within Bigfoot Research?

Coast to Coast AM: Male Chauvinism Within Bigfoot Research?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 20th, 2007

Skullduggery

Of course, at some level, one could say we don’t even know what we are looking for and what skills or odors or equipment it will ultimately take to find unknown hairy hominoids. After all, we haven’t found any Bigfoot, Yeti, Almas, or Skunk Ape yet, so what we have been doing isn’t working - or the unknown hairy hominoids are not out there. But that doesn’t stop some people from criticizing others who are for a completely open field of investigators - from academics to truck drivers, from women to men, from true believers to skeptics. For example, in a recent case, two of us encouraging women are labeled as chauvinistic. This seems a curious reaction, doesn’t it?

Intelligent women involved in Bigfoot research wish to have an open discussion about sexism in the field. I say great. But it seems incredibly remarkable to me that two women would pick out as targets to critique George Noory and myself, via mislabeling or misunderstanding what we discussed just last week, via seemingly trying to pin the label “male chauvinists” on our backs.

I am at once dismayed, outraged and disappointed in Robin Bellamy and Sue Darroch for remarks they have made to warp around George and my brief discussion about supporting women in Bigfoot fieldwork and then say it is “a bit chauvinistic.”

In the May 20, 2007 blog by Sue Darroch, she uploaded a posting entitled “Sunday Smackdown….Male Chauvinism Within Cryptozoology?” I post it here, without edits, including her misspelling of “Sasquatch,” so there will be no accusing me of trying to emphasis one part over another. This is done to make immediate commentary on Darroch’s editiorialized view of George and my talk show sidebar on why women might, in the end, do better in the Bigfoot field. Here is what she says:

Famed Cryptozoologist Loren Coleman was recently interviewed on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory, and one of the topics that was brought up is one that we’ve been tossing around on our paranormal message forums lately….women in Cryptozoology. Something that appears at least on the surface to be too far, and too few between…and I thought there was an “old boys” network in UFOlogy .. huh!

Mr Coleman had made an interesting point about women in the field though. Could Bigfoot or a Saquatch [sic] find a woman less threatening or more attractive in the field? Would this give her an advantage in the study? You can read more on Loren Coleman’s thoughts on this subject here.

Frankly, our own Director of Cryptozoology, Robin Bellamy who is a woman found this a bit chauvinistic, and so did I. More likely women in the field would do well because of their SKILLS and METHOD than their hormones!

However, they’re talking about women in the field and that’s a good thing. Right! Right? Sue Darroch, “Sunday Smackdown….Male Chauvinism Within Cryptozoology?”12:56:25 am, 05/20/07,

I did not use the word “attractive” in the same way that it seems Darroch appears to be implying I did. I was not talking about sexual attraction but about how animals have a fight or flight response, how they “read” each other. I wasn’t talking about hormones, but more correctly, about pheromones (i.e. those chemical substances released by an animal that serves to influence the physiology or behavior of other members of the same or similar species). As noted in the blog posting in which Darroch has not shared the title, in “Women Bigfooters Do Better Fieldwork?”, I was discussing the biological level of relating used in conjunction with fieldwork - and alluded to the work of Jane Goodall. Goodall was not using her “hormones” to have sex with chimpanzees, but instead, the messages in her pheromones to send signals to the chimpanzees that she was not a threat to them.

Darroch appears unaware of my previous work on gender and sexism, including the fact my master’s thesis was written about sexism in the professionals, and my masters was awarded from the women’s college where I attended their graduate school for my masters degree.

Darroch also apparently has missed that sexism has been a topic of some interest to me and readers here at Cryptomundo. It is fine if she wants to call me “a bit chauvinistic,” for as a male, despite my best efforts, I probably do slip, as most males do. But in my discussion on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory, I was well-aware of the low numbers of Bigfooters who are female, and was alert to the fact that what I was saying was to support more women in the field, not less.

Indeed, in my blog “Homophobus mysognistis xenophobus ignoramus,”, I might have went overboard to state my point, but from Darroch’s posting, it is apparent I did not make my point enough. Simply stated, the more people - of all kinds, of all genders - in cryptozoology - the better.

I won’t soon stop how I view the importance of expunging “evidence” and “theories” with xenophobic, homophobic, and racism backgrounds from cryptozoology and hominology. It is one thing to criticize people based on their theories or thought-process (like Mary Green, for her continued lack of evidence, or Jack Lapseritis, for shaky less than concrete thinking), and quite another to go after people because they, for example, are women, Native, African-American, or Jewish.

So instead of just complaining, what can we do? We all are required to do our part in changing the legacy of subtle colonial and cultural oppression to be found even within the study of hidden animals and hairy hominoids. You can do something about making the right choices in your cryptozoological work. Let me give you an example, one I constructed very consciously in the mid-1990s.

In Cryptozoology A to Z (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1999), understanding what occurs for young people through descriptions of role models, I (along with coauthor Jerome Clark) presented biographies of men and women that would inspire girls and boys. To counterbalance any sense that this was an overly celebrity-filled Caucasian American male-dominated field, I liberally sprinkled my book with biographical examples that were as diverse as is the global field of cryptozoology.

I purposefully highlighted women (e.g. Ruth Harkness, Roberta “Bobbie” Short, Eugenie Clark, Ramona Clark, Barbara Wasson, Marie-Jeanne Koffmann, Odette Tchernine, Arlene Gaal), non-Americans (e.g. Arlene Gaal, Dmitri Bayonov, Odette Tchernine, Rene Dahinden, Boris Porshnev, Michel Raynal, Marie-Jeanne Koffmann, Tan Hong Viet, Lars Thomas, Gerald Russell), and forgotten historical individuals (e.g. Ruth Harkness, Forrest Wood, Marie-Jeanne Koffmann, Gerald Russell, Odette Tchernine, Bruce S. Wright, Ramona Clark). Also, remembering this was in 1999, I also pointed to the up-and-coming stars (e.g. Arlene Gaal, Jeff Meldrum, Bobbie Short, Bill Gibbons). Of 200 entries in Cryptozoology A to Z, some 60 biographies in all were written on those who had contributed to cryptozoology by the end of the 1990s. Most were men, of course, because the field is mostly male, but that did not stop us from gathering as many women in the book as the publisher’s space would allow us.

For those individuals for whom I was unable to obtain more complete biographies or due to editorial limitations, I made certain that other female role models (who were researching hairy unknown hominoids) were mentioned in the entries on specific cryptids. Examples include British travel writer turned fulltime field cryptozoologist Deborah Martyr (under “Orang Pendek”), medical doctor Anne Mallasse (under “Barmanu”), and Myra Shackley (under “Almas”).

I did and do my writing in an unspoken expression and commitment to the fact that the fields of cryptozoology and hominology can be open to whomever wishes to engage in the pursuit and research on cryptids and unknown hominoids. There need not be any barriers in the way of those that dream, those that do, and those that wish to achieve, other than the normal, routine, and unfortunate cultural, societal, racist, ageist, and sexist roadblocks that are thrown up in the way of any human who wishes to break past traditions and forge ahead. It is time for us, in this realm too, to commit to break those barriers down.

“Homophobus mysognistis xenophobus ignoramus,” April 12, 2007.

Am I a chauvinist? Well, sometimes I may be too defensive, too passionate, too interested in pushing the envelope into the future, too nerdy, and too sleepy, but I’ve never gotten the feedback from women - or men - that I’m a chauvinist. I can’t speak for how George Noory feels, but from being on his show almost 20 times, I have not experienced him as being a sexist, a chauvinist, a racist, or a xenophobe. I am sorry Robin Bellamy and Sue Darroch found our comments on C2C “a bit chauvinistic.”

^^^^^^^^^^^^UPDATE^^^^^^^^

Hominologist and Texas resident Melissa Hovey has written a thoughtful response on this issue.

See her “The Search for Bigfoot: A Scientific Forum” for Sunday, May 20, 2007, specifically her blog “Is Loren Coleman a Chauvinist?”.

I appreciate her taking the time to share what she has written.

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 20th, 2007 at 10:05 am and is filed under Abominable Snowman, Almas, Bigfoot, Books, Breaking News, CryptoZoo News, Cryptomundo Exclusive, Cryptozoologists, Cryptozoology, Malaysian Bigfoot, Media Appearances, Pop Culture, Public Forum, Sasquatch, Windigo, Yeti, Yowie. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

27 Responses to “Coast to Coast AM: Male Chauvinism Within Bigfoot Research?”

Tabitca responds: May 20th, 2007 at 10:42 am
As a feminist who taught what was then called Women’s Studies before it’s present title Gender Studies and an amateur cryptozoologist for over 30 years, I can honestly say I have never found you to be chauvinistic Loren. Over the years when ever I have had contact with you, you have always been courteous and fair in your replies and not condescending or in any way “pat the little woman on the head”. (Something as an academic I have had happen many times over the years).

However I do find certain sections of Cryptozoology a bit of a boys club, but then that is true of many other subjects. So it is up to us, male and female, to change that.
Bob Michaels responds: May 20th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Looks like those two [women] are trying for an Imus kill. Heck, if they can find a Bigfoot female let them go out and pursue it and stop casting silly aspersions in order to achieve some celebrity.
daledrinnon responds: May 20th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
The key point to me seems to be that the women in question are misrepresenting the original statement to get the meaning they want out of it. I find that dishonest, and you will seldom find a more devoted male feminist than I am.

I also know that if I am going to be out in the field looking for Bigfoot along with some female co-workers, and some male scout-Bigfoot comes around, the scout guy is going to veer away from me as more threatening and approach the females preferentially–if there is any approach at all. This is a hypothetical instance and based on what I have heard from others, but it is something that I HAVE heard repeatedly from other researchers. I have not actually been in that situation yet myself–my cryptozoology field investigations have been largely stag in the past, but actually because there were no interested females around locally at the time. Same goes for my academic Geology field trips and caving expeditions. Most of these were organized by people other than myself. Ordinarily, if I could even get a couple of other guys to tote equipment on one of these outings I was lucky.
Loren Coleman responds: May 20th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Texas Bigfoot researcher Melissa Hovey has written a thoughtful response on her “The Search for Bigfoot: A Scientific Forum” for Sunday, May 20, 2007. Specifically see her blog “Is Loren Coleman a Chauvinist?”.
ddh1969 responds: May 20th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
In a may 13th blog posted by Loren Coleman titled “What Are Bigfoot Mothers To Do?”, I made a reply that could be related to some of this. In my May 13th response, I suggested that things unknown/paranormal seemed to be more ‘attracted’ to women/children. I went on to raise a few questions about what men were missing/lacking in the field and even further went on to suggest we needed more women in the field.

I don’t have much of an ego at all, so I certainly don’t mean to imply that I had anything to do with any of this but I thought it seemed awfully coincidental that this story would come out…ohhhh…NOW!

I didn’t get to listen to C2C that night but what better time for two women ‘bigfooters’ to speak out? Obviously, being in the minority IN THIS FIELD and hearing/reading anything remotely derogatory or sexist is going to spur, at some point, some backlash no matter how unnecessary or misplaced it may be.

We live in a society where ‘political correctness’ often overlaps with our right to ‘free speech’. How often can someone be put on the spot in the media and make comments that were not meant to offend but somehow ended up doing just that?

Mosquitoes are attracted to the color blue, bears, evidentially, are attracted to honey…I believe ‘attraction’ was used more in that context than anything sexual. I know in my blog response last week that is indeed what I had in mind. I certainly hope bigfoot doesn’t want children for sex. See what thoughts this puts in my head? Should I be offended? It certainly IS a fine line. Guess it just depends what side of it you happen to stand at the time.

Ladies, I understand your plight but you need to pick and choose your battles more wisely. I’m afraid more assaults like this will only further deter the ‘feminist cryptozoology movement’ more than it will help. Any serious group could now be forced to think twice before welcoming females thanks to you. As it stands right now, we’ll discuss this and a few days from now no one will talk about it probably…in the ‘grand scheme’ it’s nothing…but you are on the wrong track.

Let’s ask Jeff Meldrum what he thinks after all this derision he’s encountered lately as an educated MALE in the field if there is any sexism in bigfoot research. It’s just us men talking and yucking it up about bigfoot all day and all night….eating sleeping and drinking wherever we want, after all….

If you want to be a bigfoot researcher, doctor, nurse, lawyer….I urge anyone and everyone to follow their dreams…the road IS easy for a very select few in life but most of us WORK for our dreams and our place in life no matter what our sex is or no matter our ethnicity. Go out and do what you want…well…as long as it isn’t physically harming someone else…or breaking any laws…well…I gotta watch what I say and how I say it don’t I?

Thanks All
daledrinnon responds: May 20th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Melissa says it all, I have no problems with her statement and in fact I applaud her courage in coming right to the point..
fuzzy responds: May 20th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Hard to ponder logically about this subject, with all the emotion and histrionics flying around…

Are we saying that we actually expect the many-gendered people involved in Cryptozoological research to behave in a manner different from mainstream proles?

What is it that says WE are any different, intellect? Bah! Interests? Hoo Hah! Training? Ummm- Nah. Well, partly.

We are triune creatures, spiritual entities struggling to deal intellectually with our hormone-driven physicalities, most of us recognizing instinctively the basic “go - no go”, right vs wrong standards, but experiential, environmental, social and other influences affect our every thought and action, so sometimes, we err - in the eyes and judgement of others.

There seems to be a lot of that goin’ around.

If I were interacting socially with a female Cryptoenthusiast, say, dinner and a movie (to beat an already disheveled cliche’ to death), I would like to think I would behave as my parents trained and encouraged me to behave towards a lady.

But put her in jeans and boots, with camera and night-vision gear hanging here and there, a utility-belt full of bear-spray, sheath knife, sidearm and extra clips, batteries and other paraphernalia, and the olfactory testimony to three days in the woods, and I’ll let her open her own car doors!!

Where’s the Chauvinism in that?
crypto_randz responds: May 20th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I don’t think so!
Ole Bub responds: May 20th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Lord knows ole bub is as mysoginistic as the next bubba when its comes to “skirts and groupies” in the field. Camo purses, “skin so soft” and the like…LOL

However…some of the female researchers I’m familiar with are producing more compelling results than most of us macho males…JMHO

I think their success has more to do with control issues, threat perception and field demeanor than pherries, fieldcraft or sexism….JMHO

live and let live…

ole bub and the dawgs
Melissa responds: May 20th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Mr. Coleman,

When I started asking questions about how women are treated in this over a year or so ago, never did I imagine such a level of hostility would begin to take over.

I am all for equal rights, I am however not a “womens libber” I say, if you want to make a splash in something - do it on your own merits. If someone is giving you a hard time, there is probably a reason, women if we want to be taken seriously - we must take the work we do seriously. Work hard, over come your weaknesses - respect isn’t a right in this life, its something you earn, regardless of gender.

I do not know these women, and they certainly do not speak for me.. I do hope if they continue this “witch hunt” they use words like “I” more often, not all of us in this feel “held back by men”.

We are only limited by others, if we allow it to happen - and that too is not specific to one gender. Comments like these from women, make the rest of us look like weak crybabies.

Here is a question for those women… Are you doing everything you can to get more women into this field of research? Are you helping other women who are doing active field research? I have been involved in casting experiments now for over a year, trying to determine how casting artifacts happen, and what conditions may or may not create them - I have heard nothing from these women in support of my work, so ladies how much do you pay attention to the women researchers out there and what they are accomplishing? I am surprised that the majority of my support comes from Men within this field. I have some wonderful female supporters - but the ones who pushed me the hardest and made me believe I had something to offer - were men.

My blog focuses heavily on womens issues in this field of research, yet I have to interview one woman who told me they felt held back by men. So, maybe its not all me, and more a matter of perception?

Stop defining yourself by your gender - and I think life will get better.

Things like this make us all look bad, and its my pleasure to weigh in on this Mr. Coleman.

From a woman to a man - Thank you for your support!
alanborky responds: May 20th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Loren, even the most reasonable and fairminded of us have little blind spots where little things can trigger us off in out of proportion reactions in a way that larger issues mightn’t.

In this case, I suspect, as you seem to, the trigger was the word ‘attractive’ which Sue Darroch seemed to react to without considering whether you really had in mind a group of scantily clad, glammed up femme fatales, coquettishly fluttering their false eyelashes while propped up against a tree in the middle of the woods calling out, “Yoo-hoo, Sasquatch! Come out, come out, wherever you are - you naughty boy!”

Having said that, if you, Craig (Woolheater) and Nick (Redfern) ever tried the same approach, you never know, it just might work!

[It'd certainly make for great reality TV!].

Th-th-th-th-that’s all folks!
Kathy Strain responds: May 20th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
I guess I’m a bit lost on what sexism and chauvinism is today. Loren wondered if bigfoot could find a woman less threatening and more attractive in the field (and thereby increasing the ability of a woman obtaining evidence). How exactly is that sexist? When did it become chauvinism to acknowledge a difference between men and women (because you know, there IS a difference). Women DO look different; women DO smell different; women ARE less threatening then men (do to our size). Fact is never sexism.

Sexism is making statements that suggest that women are less able to or capable of doing something equal to a man (and even then there are physical differences). Sexism does exist - you can note back in another thread when someone made a statement that women can bring in a bigfoot by thinking about how sweet a bigfoot is and what we would cook him for dinner. Those statements, though, are rare and far between, and didn’t come from Loren. To accuse Loren of sexism based on the statement above is ludicrous.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. If, as a woman, you are feeling that you aren’t getting the respect you deserve, then look at how you are presenting your research and your ideas…start with changing yourself before trying to change the world.
timthehippie responds: May 20th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
I fully believe that the female pheromone would be detectable by the Bigfoot and preferred to the male. Basic humanoid nature I would think.

:o)
LanceFoster responds: May 20th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Well I look at it this way. There are also more male players of Dungeons and Dragons, and more male Star Trek enthusiasts. These are nerd pursuits. Let’s face it, guys. Guys who get into cryptozoology usually have a big nerd streak.

Let’s consider this logically then. Cryptozoology basically attracts nerds. And there are more male nerds than female nerds. Ergo, there are more male cryptozoologists than female cryptozoologists.
jodzilla responds: May 20th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Some people only have eyes for what they’re looking for, be it sexism or Sasquatch. I found nothing offensive about what you said. I listened to you and read your books and never once have I noticed gender bias. It seems as if any acknowledgment of gender is cause for an uproar these days. When will it be okay to say that men and women are different without either party risking an accusation of sexism? Looking for social offenses seems like a distraction from what should be a mutual goal–finding new species.
Double Naught Spy responds: May 20th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Women can do anything men can do. This includes, of course, behaving like boneheads in public.
silvereagle responds: May 21st, 2007 at 12:19 am
Women appear to be equally successful or unsuccessful as men, at finding new proof of Bigfoot. More tracks, more twistoffs, more spoor and more hair samples, are not new proof. They are same old, same old stuff. A few women are getting into the trenches, and standing shoulder to shoulder with the men, on the normally fruitless night stakeouts. Women are getting more and more involved in the usual mud slinging and blacklisting as well, that has always gone on in the bigfoot internet forums. For example, mud slinging comments such as appear above, incorrectly suggests that sexism is when someone points out with tongue in cheek humor, that women think different than men. On rebuttal, Litany’s of psychological studies have been documented that women do in fact think different that men, on average. Not too many people wasting their time arguing those conclusions, these days. Time that they will never get back. What we can conclude here though, is that sexism and chauvinism, is in the eye of the beholder. And that, depends upon individual bias at cherry picking evidence in order to reach the desired conclusion.

“Individual Bias” being a trait that does not look real good on the resume, when applying for recognition in any kind of scientific research.
dontmean2prymate responds: May 21st, 2007 at 1:02 am
On the sexually prejudicial affect of nerd pheremones on random readers of bigfoot-related posts…

I can’t tell the gender of posters unless they give it away, and even then who knows if it’s true? I assume they’re mostly male and am often surprised when texts reveal my assumption wrong. That’s a beautiful thing: forums are automatically non-discriminatory. Any of you could be a blue and yellow speckled 160 year-old hermaphroditic humanoid in a cave beneath Antarctica. All that matters is your information offered.

In the wild (city or other), gender affects the moment. When I was young, horny and lonely I prowled the streets. I wasn’t looking for a bigfoot or a bigfoot hunter. I was looking for an attractive female whether it was her pheromones, perfume, or highheels. I’m sexist that way.

If I’m looking for someone to find bigfoot, I’d consider a woman first, because the bigfoot to find would probably be a prowling young male. Now I’m discriminating against men. I also wouldn’t hire a female who smokes cigars and plans to use a deer rifle. So I won’t be hiring, unless you’re an old speckled thing near the south pole.

I’ll always be sexist when it comes to sex, but not when it comes to the person for the job. And in this case, I’d hire Loren to hire the best person for the job.
daledrinnon responds: May 21st, 2007 at 6:59 am
Sexism is like Vegetarianism. One form of Vegetarianism eschews red meat but accepts fish and poultry as all right to eat.

One definition of sexism is in the acceptance of ANY difference between the sexes, just as one definition of racism is the very acceptance of the concept of human races. This sort of thinking can easily be allowed to run out of control, and it looks as if this is one example of the thinking running out of control.
DWA responds: May 21st, 2007 at 10:37 am
Tempest. Teapot.

But of course, in squatchery, most days are slow news days.

As a man (bet you never guessed), I get particularly annoyed with women who, in trying to tell me they’re just as good as I am, start taking undue advantage of their femininity. The two featured in this discussion would be instantly labeled WHINERS! if they were men. Here they have men falling all over themselves defending what they said with no ill intent, nor could it be interpreted as sexist by anyone without a chip on her whining shoulder.

This is the kind of crap - heck, just read the blogs - that we spend undue time on in squatchery and in crypto as a whole. It’s not about the personalities; it’s about the critters.

Jane Goodall knew that from the beginning, LADIES.
dogu4 responds: May 21st, 2007 at 11:35 am
If geniune field research for the elusive BF is ever undertaken I would recommend that the field researcher be alert, aware, visual, low impact and contempletive…and very VERY patient. Sounds like a perfect job for a any number of seasoned female field bio-techs I’ve met and worked with. Though there are quite a few male field biologists who think likewise, but for the same reason they arent heard or their perspective can’t be heard over the din from arguement about the best gun or results of some speculative death match scenario between alleged bigfoot and some other fearful rogue beast we see on cable tv.
It would contrast nicely with what seems to be the typical male approach to a bivouac in BFcountry; one of humvees, guns, nets and the believe that we can solve our problem if only we had better night vision goggles. Considering the record of success so far, it couldn’t hurt.
Ole Bub responds: May 21st, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Excellent commentary…Dogu4…

Too many grown men playing soldier when they should be using a kinder, gentler, patient approach…JMHO

What if these creatures are not creatures but our “first or second” cousins so to speak…with tools, language and culture? What if the prevailing Native American concept of Sasquatch is correct?

live and let live…

ole bub and the dawgs
bill green responds: May 21st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
hey loren, wow definetly a very interesting new article about bigfoot research on coast to coast am. i still injoy listing that radio show. thanks bill green
DIANNA MT. HOOD responds: May 21st, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Hello Loren
We don’t think you are a male chauvinist Thanks for the help you have given to Klindt & I
fuzzy responds: May 22nd, 2007 at 12:16 am
Ole Bub - you asked, “What if these creatures are not creatures but our “first or second” cousins so to speak…with tools, language and culture?”

Tools? No reports, other than digging sticks, that I know of, although they must be able to wield weapons, because of tree-knocking.

Language? Many tales of Squatches hollerin’ at each other - and at us - but who knows what they’re “saying”?

Culture? Vague comments about clothing draped over a shoulder or around a waist, but I’m waiting to hear about a Squatch at an ATM!

(I used to have a second cousin who looked like Sasquatch, ‘cept she had a wooden leg. Died of the Elm Blight back in ought-twenny-six.)
Carol Maltby responds: May 22nd, 2007 at 9:06 am
Whether size, body language, scent, or other possibly gender-based differences might matter in the field is a legitimate question. I think I’d want to put these questions to primatologists who work out in the field, rather than to those in the Bigfoot community, if only because they might be more objective, and have a broader and more informed view of whether it might depend on the species being studied.

It would be useful to see how the involvement and perceived position in Bigfoot studies of women compares to that in other non-mainstream areas. Women are distinct minorities in those areas as well, but I can think of no way in which any perceived physical differences matter there.

What makes or breaks it for me in these areas is not so much what level of overt sexism is present, but how much of any face-to-face or online group membership consists of guys with poor social skills. Any place full of guys who want to score points in a debate tends to make it less likely that a true dialogue and respectful exchange of information and opinions will be welcomed.

But when I see a topic like this using terms like “male chauvinism,” “women’s libber,” and “ladies,” I wonder why people are trying to make points using vocabulary that dates back more than three decades. Does that say something important about the demographics of this site?
silvereagle responds: May 22nd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Fuzzy,
I believe that the possession of tools, language and culture, is not a requirement to being our cousins. As I recall, the Native Americans and the Bigfoot agree that the “Bigfoot is our brother”. Tools for what purpose? They do not need to make clothes, cars or a product to trade. They are entirely self sufficient and require no clothes, transportation or objects that they themselves cannot directly acquire. Language? They appear to understand ours. Many people have been the recipient of telepathic communication from them, and they have reported it to be in English. So who says that they do not have a language? Culture? Are we talking opera, ice capades and the movies here? From my observation, the Bigfoot appear to have the capability of dropping in on any of these events, and remain undetected. They also appear to be highly self-disciplined, extremely polite, very considerate, family oriented, quite willing to be friends with us, don’t spend their lifetime consumed by religious wars, do not require attorneys to settle disputes, do not require credit cards to purchase items for their girlfriend who will dump him when their credit runs out, do not get into debt up to their eyeballs for a place to live, do not require expensive cars to travel and do not require a job to earn wampum from which they can trade for goods or services that supposedly makes his life better. So exactly which of us, the Bigfoot or man, is truly cultured, and to what purpose? Perhaps the Bigfoot has no use for our form of culture and can see it’s inevitable self-destructive path.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Spread the Word!

27 Responses to “Coast to Coast AM: Male Chauvinism Within Bigfoot Research?”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

microsoft office 2003 oem,

cheap software downloads,

The Logo Creator MEGA pak 3.6;

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

software oem cd line business;

iCorrect EditLab Pro 4.52,

software discount oem?

adobe cs2 photo shop total training

oem software bundle

"Buy cheap PhotoShop CS 2"

microsoft office 2003 oem,

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

oem software bundle

software oem cd line business;

inkjet definition oem software

adobe cs2 photo shop total training

"locate software oem files"

iCorrect EditLab Pro 4.52,

adobe any cs2 from photo photo shop shop upgrade version

"how to activate reget deluxe"

microsoft office 2003 oem,

"locate software oem files"

software discount oem?

adobe cs2 photo shop total training